China Digital
Mimeng and ‘Self-Media’ under Attack for Promoting Fake News Stories to Chinese Readers
Chinese ‘zimeiti’ or ‘self media’ have become a topic of discussion after this Mimeng scandal.
First published
It was one of the most-discussed topics on Weibo and WeChat right before the Chinese New Year: the scandal involving Chinese blogging account ‘Mimeng’ (咪蒙), which sparked discussions on Mimeng herself and on the regulation and responsibility of ‘we media’ accounts on the Chinese internet.
Who or what is ‘Mimeng’? First and foremost, Mimeng is an online social media account with an enormous fanbase: 13 million followers on WeChat, 2.6 followers on Weibo.
The person behind the Mimeng blogging account is Ma Ling (马凌), a Chinese female author and Literature graduate who was born in 1976 in Sichuan’s Nanchong.
Over the past few years, ‘Mimeng’ has grown into a so-called ‘we media’ or ‘self media’ platform (zimeiti 自媒体), referring to private, independent, online publishing accounts that get their content across through blogs, podcasts, and other online channels. Mimeng is now more than Ma Ling alone: there’s an entire team behind it.
Mimeng has been controversial for years because of its clickbait titles and controversial stances on various issues. The topics most addressed in Mimeng’s publications are relationships between men and women, love, marriage, quarreling, and extramarital affairs.
Previous articles published by Mimeng, who is a self-labeled ‘feminist’ (and often mocked for it), include titles such as “This Is Why You’re Poor,” “Jealously Means Progress,” “I Love Money, It’s True,” “Men Don’t Cheat for Sex,” or “How to Kill Your Wife.”
Besides its content, there are also other reasons why Mimeng has triggered controversy in the past. The fact that Mimeng charges a staggering amount of money to advertisers, for example, is also something that previously became a topic of discussion – Mimeng allegedly charges some 750,000 yuan ($113,000) for a post mention.
SELLING FAKE STORIES
“As an influential We Media source, we must take on our social responsibility”
This time, however, Mimeng is hit by the biggest controversy thus far. The media group is under attack after publishing a story that turned out to be (partly) fabricated. The story was published on a WeChat account called Talented Limited Youth (才华有限青年), which is registered under the same legal entity as Mimeng. Its primary author, according to Sixth Tone, is a former intern of Ma Ling called Yang Yueduo.
The publication in question is a long story titled “The Death of a Top Scorer from a Poor Family” (“一个出身寒门的状元之死”) which allegedly portrayed the short life of the author’s old classmate: a young, bright mind, born in an impoverished family in Sichuan province. In the story, the protagonist did all he could to create a better life for him and his family.
He studied hard, got the best university entrance score of his city, and successfully graduated from university. But despite his efforts to start a life in the big city, he failed to succeed and tragically died of cancer at the young age of 24.
Shortly after publication, the moving and tragic story went viral on social media. However, several details made online readers doubt the story’s authenticity. It did not take long before readers proved that several aspects of the story were indeed untrue.
In light of the fake news allegations, Talented Limited Youth quickly deleted the story from WeChat. They also issued a statement defending the story’s authenticity, explaining that for privacy reasons, various details of the story were altered. According to Beijing News, Talented Limited Youth was then banned from posting on WeChat for 60 days.
In response to the allegations, Mimeng offered its “sincerest apologies” on Weibo on February 1st, saying: “The Mimeng Group has decided to completely withdraw from Weibo and take a two-month break from WeChat. We will use that time to carry out serious and profound self-reflection.” The post continued saying that “as an influential We Media source, we must take on our social responsibility and pass on positive energy and values.”
The announcement went trending under the hashtag “Mimeng Shuts Down Weibo Indefinitely” (#咪蒙微博永久关停#), which has received over 210 million views at time of writing.
POISONED CHICKEN SOUP
“Mimeng, for you, patriotism is only business”
On social media, there is a clear divide between those who support and oppose Mimeng. While some are calling for a “complete shutdown” of Mimeng, there are also those who say they will keep on following Mimeng and that they enjoy their publications.
The controversial Mimeng account has even brought about a so-called “Following Mimeng Rate” (含咪率), a number based on how many of your WeChat friends are following Mimeng‘s public WeChat account (by checking Mimeng’s account on WeChat, WeChat users can see how many of their friends are following this account).
Mimeng opposers allege that the more friends you have that follow the Miming account, the more likely you are “to fail in life.”
The official Weibo account of the Jiangsu Public Security’s Bureau of ‘Internet Safety’ (@江苏网警) is also a clear Mimeng opposer. Last week, they lashed out against Mimeng in a post titled “Mimeng, for you, patriotism is only business.”
The post hints at Mimeng’s inconsistent stance on patriotism, and it included screenshots from two earlier Mimeng posts from 2013 and 2016, one in which patriotism is referred to as a kind of “forced love,” and the other one saying: “I’ll love my country forever, its greatness will forever move me to tears.”
The post by the Jiangsu Bureau itself then also blew up on Weibo, with the hashtag “Jiangsu Internet Police calls out Mimeng” (#江苏网警点名咪蒙#) soon gaining over 210 million views. In the comment sections, many people criticize Mimeng for “deceiving people,” “promoting negative values” and “using anything to get clicks.”
One person wrote: “These self-regulated media only care about making money, they have no sense of social responsibility.”
Others said that the fake news story was nothing but ‘poisoned chicken soup’ (毒鸡汤).
This is a term that is often used to describe Mimeng’s content, and that of other self-media accounts, meaning that from the outside, it looks like “feel-good content” or “chicken soup [for the soul]” while it is actually ‘poisonous’ content with a marketing strategy or money-making machine behind it.
ZIMEITI CHAOS
“Self- media cannot become a spiritual pyramid scheme”
The Mimeng case has led to discussions in Chinese media on the status of ‘we media’ or ‘self-media’ platforms and their influence.
People’s Daily responded to the Mimeng scandal with a post on February 1st titled “Self-media Cannot Become a Spiritual Pyramid Scheme” (“自媒体不能搞成精神传销”), which argued that unless self-media accounts such as Mimeng actually work on establishing “healthy social values,” their apologies are only a way to temporarily dodge negative public attention.
In late January, Chongqing Internet authorities launched an investigation into 48 ‘self-media’ accounts, suspending two for spreading “fake news.”
State media outlet China News published an article, also this week, that describes ‘self-media’ as a ‘hypermarket’ where publishers will go to extreme measures, such as selling ‘fake news’ for clicks, spreading negative influences and anxiety among the people.
But these discussions are somewhat blurred, as it is not entirely clear what ‘self-media’ actually is in this context. Generally speaking, the term could include any micro-blogger who identifies themselves as ‘self-media’ or ‘we media’ (zimeiti 自媒体). But in the current discussion, it seems to only relate to those publishing accounts that have a certain influence on social media and the (online) media environment, posing a challenge to traditional news outlets.
Some definitions of Chinese ‘we media’ say it is basically is “an umbrella term for self-posted content on social media platforms” (Qin 2016; Jiang & Sun 2017) – this suggests that everyone who is active on WeChat and Weibo or elsewhere is basically in ‘self-media.’
A clearer description is given by Week in China, writing that “zimeiti typically operate as social media accounts run by individuals or as small firms established by a handful of former journalists.”
What makes it different from any other social media account, is that in ‘we-media’ or ‘zimeiti’ “the blogging has been professionalized and that the authors can make a living from it” (WiC 2018). It is a trend that has become especially visible in China’s online environment since 2012-2014.
This highly commercial side of ‘we media’ matters. If a publisher, such as Mimeng, charges advertisers exorbitant amounts of money, they also have to maintain a certain number of readers. They don’t just post as a hobby, it is serious business.
In a highly competitive online media environment, where hundreds of media outlets are fighting over the clicks of China’s online population of over 800 people, clickbait titles have almost become somewhat of a necessity for some of these publishers, with some even resorting to publishing “fake news” to get the attention – and the clicks.
China’s Newsweek Magazine (新闻周刊) calls the situation at hand a “self-media chaos” (自媒体乱象) that poses an “unprecedented challenge” for governing society in the 3.0 era. They call for “healthy development of self-media” and better legislation to control the mushrooming zimeiti, that, despite strong online censorship, are not as tightly controlled as China’s traditional media.
“Nowadays, we have less and less intellectuals, and more and more ‘people selling words.’ The chaos of self-media needs to be controlled,” one commenter on Weibo says (@ZY盒子).
But other people deem that readers themselves should pick what they read instead of authorities regulating it for them: “The important thing is that every reader must have the independence to judge for themselves [what they read]; just let the ‘poisonous chicken soup’ [naturally] lose their market.”
The Mimeng scandal shows that for social media accounts with a large following, one misstep can have huge consequences. This is something that Papi Jiang, a ‘self-media’ personality who became huge in 2015/2016, also experienced; she was reprimanded for disseminating “vulgar language and content” in April of 2016.
Very similar to Mimeng’s statement, Papi also issued an apology at the time, saying she supported the requirement for correction, and that she would attempt to convey “positive power” (正能量) in the future. “As a media personality,” she said, “I will watch my words and my image.” Papi’s CEO also expressed the company’s willingness to produce “healthier contents.” At the time, her videos were temporarily taken offline.
Meanwhile, some people think that the fact that Mimeng will stay silent for the coming two months is not necessarily a bad thing for the publisher: “They can take an extra long Spring Festival holiday.” As for Mimeng’s Weibo ‘holiday’ – that one is likely to be permanent.
By Gabi Verberg and Manya Koetse
References
-Qin, Amy. 2016. “China’s Viral Idol: Papi Jiang, a Girl Next Door With Attitude.” New York Times, 24 Aug https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/arts/international/chinas-viral-idol-papi-jiang-a-girl-next-door-with-attitude.html [2.6.19].
-Sun, Yanran and Jiang. 2017. “A Study on the Effectiveness of We-Media as a Platform for Intercultural Communication.” In New Media and Chinese Society, Ke Xue & Mingyang Yu (Eds.), 271-284. Singapore: Springer.
-WiC. 2018. “Headline earnings – Zimeiti hunt media profits but they still need to play by the rules.” Week in China, 15 June https://www.weekinchina.com/2018/06/headline-earnings/ [2.6.19].
Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us.
©2019 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com
China Brands, Marketing & Consumers
BMW Ice Cream Gate: Three Reasons Why a MINI Story Became a Major Incident
There is more behind the BMW MINI ice cream incident than ice cream alone.
It is the noteworthy incident that made international headlines over the past week: a freebie marketing campaign by German automotive company BMW at the Shanghai Auto Show went horribly wrong.
The incident happened on April 20, 2023, at the Shanghai show’s MINI booth, where two Chinese female workers were giving out free ice cream from a local brand.
A video was posted on Chinese video platforms Bilibili and Douyin that showed staff at the booth refusing ice cream to a local visitor by stating that it had all been given away. However, when a foreign attendee approached, the staff suddenly had ice cream readily available for them.
The person who was filming, a Chinese man named Sun, then stepped up to the booth and ask for ice cream himself. The girls then suggested an app was needed for that, and that they had limited supplies. The video further showed that the only people actually enjoying the Luneurs brand ice cream were all foreigners.
The video footage soon went viral and sparked public outrage over discrimination against Chinese visitors of the show.
Screenshots from the video showed employees ignoring Chinese visitors and giving foreigners icecream (via Weibo).
BMW MINI tried to avert a marketing disaster by issuing an official apology via its social media channels in China on the same day, stating that they regretted that their sweet promotional campaign caused unhappiness “due to the lack of internal management and staff negligence.”
Many people, however, thought the apology was insufficient. “ChatGPT could write [a better apology] than this,” a typical comment said, and some even gave examples of ChatGPT writing a better apology.
“If I can speak English can I have some ice cream?”, another popular comment said. Others said they would never consider buying BMW again.
On April 21, BMW MINI released another statement on its Weibo account, in which they indicated that they had given away 600 ice creams in two days for people coming to the booth with vouchers distributed via the MINI app. At the booth, they had also set aside a few ice creams for their own “very hard-working colleagues” at the show. The statement said that the foreigners in the video were all BMW colleagues, wearing a badge.
They again apologized for the controversy and admitted they had mismanaged the situation, adding that they hope that people can have some tolerance and space for the two female workers who are young and were just newly employed.
The two female employees were reportedly dismissed and the ice cream promotional campaign was stopped (#宝马mini两名发冰淇淋女生已离职#). “You should replace your PR team,” some people suggested.
The controversy further intensified when news came out that, also on Thursday, one female live blogging at the BMW MINI booth was sent away and removed by security.
How could ice creams at an auto show trigger such heated nationwide discussions? There are multiple factors, including historical, societal, marketing, and online media dynamics, that contributed to the incident becoming such a significant issue.
1. Painful History: “No Dogs and Chinese Allowed”
One of the reasons why the BMW MINI story triggered such sharp criticism, accusations of racism, and emotional reactions, is because the incident stirs up collective memories of a sensitive period in history when Chinese faced humiliation and discrimination by the hands of foreign powers.
In discussions on the BMW MINI ice cream incident, the phrase “Chinese and Dogs Not Admitted” (“华人与狗不得入内”) came up again and again in online comments and memes.
The phrase is widely remembered in the context of a sign in front of Shanghai’s Huangpu Park that was closed to Chinese people in the late 19th and early 20th centuries during the International Settlement. The fact that the ice cream incident took place in Shanghai further reinforced the connection to this local history.
The “No Dogs and Chinese Allowed” sentence, by the way, was never actually displayed as an official sign at the park gate. But there was still a regulation at some point that Chinese visitors, except servants, were not allowed in the park. Bicycles and dogs were also not allowed in the park. Eventually, “No Dogs and Chinese Allowed” turned into a symbol of the nation’s “historical humiliation” (Bickers & Wasserstrom 1995: 446-449).
The sign was also featured in the Bruce Lee film Fist of Fury, and one relevant scene in the film was also shared on Weibo in light of the BMW MINI controversy (watch the scene here).
Because the (imagined) Huangpu sign has left such a lasting imprint on the collective memory of the Chinese public, it comes back up in online discussions whenever there are viral incidents in which Chinese people are made to feel unequal to foreigners in any way.
“So many years have passed, yet still fundamentally there is still [the idea] that foreigners are above us,” one commenter wrote. Others spoke of “BMW’s ‘Chinese and dogs not allowed’ attitude,” and one article called the BMW ice cream incident the 21st century version of “Chinese and dogs not allowed” (“宝马mini冰淇淋事件，是21世纪的“华人与狗不得入内“).
Multiple online discussions associate the BMW ice cream incident with the history of Chinese not being allowed to enter public parks during foreign occupation.
In 2018, Chinese bike-sharing service Ofo received massive criticism when it was exposed that they would give foreigners their deposits back while Chinese customers were ignored. One news headline about special tourist trains for Chinese tourists in Switzerland also triggered controversy in 2015.
When various foreign countries imposed Covid-related travel restrictions only for passengers from China in January of 2023, many netizens also responded with resentment and anger, partly fuelled by Chinese media reports describing the rules as a form of foreign revenge, discrimination against the Chinese, and political conspiracy.
2. Consumer Nationalism amd Western Brands
Another reason why the Shanghai Auto Show incident received so much attention relates to the specific dynamics of consumer nationalism in China and the BMW brand reputation.
One type of nationalism that has become especially prevalent on Chinese social media in recent years involves online anger Chinese netizens demonstrate toward Western brands. This goes hand in hand with a shift in consumer sentiments, a growing popularity of made-in-China brands along with a rise in cultural nationalism and changing international dynamics (read more).
In July of 2022, the French luxury fashion house Dior came under fire after netizens discovered one of its skirts resembled a Chinese traditional skirt known as mǎmiànqún (马面裙). The brand did not acknowledge that it had used the Chinese traditional design and online anger grew, with many netizens accusing Dior of cultural appropriation (read here).
Western brands faced heavy criticism in China in 2021 when a social media storm erupted over the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI) and its brand members for no longer sourcing from China’s Xinjiang region. The ‘Xinjiang cotton ban’ led to a major ‘Xinjiang cotton support’ campaign on Weibo, and a boycott for those brands siding with BCI (read here).
Image “Chinese fashion first: consumer nationalism and ‘China Chic’, by Ami/Goethe, see article here.
Condemnation and boycotting of Western brands also became prevalent during the Hong Kong protests in 2019, when Chinese social media users and state media condemned foreign brands for showing any signs of disregarding the One-China Policy. Asics, Calvin Klein, Coach, Givenchy, Versace, Swarovksi, and others were blamed for not respecting China’s sovereignty by listing Hong Kong and Taiwan as different countries on their websites or other products (read here).
In 2018, Italian fashion house D&G got caught up in a major controversy when its promo video campaign came under fire. In of their videos, a Chinese female model clumsily attempted to eat a large cannoli bread with chopsticks; a voice-over said that the cannoli might be “too big” for her. It was not received very well by many netizens on Chinese social media, where people called it “outdated and stereotypical,” “racist,” and “disrespectful.” The controversy snowballed out of control from there and became much worse after screenshots of racist comments attributed to fashion designer Stefano Gabba went viral (read here).
The recent BMW incident is thus part of a larger pattern of Western brands being accused of insulting and disrespecting Chinese people, while the popularity of Chinese (car) brands is rising. Earlier this month, What’s on Weibo wrote an article about how BMW often makes headlines in China in the context of horrific hit-and-run incidents and how the negative headlines are impacting BMW’s brand image in China.
BMW’s negative brand reputation in China exacerbates the impact of the ice cream incident, rather than alleviating it.
Although the brand has had a positive image for its high-quality and luxurious cars, it has also received a lot of unfavorable publicity, creating more negative associations – BMW drivers are generally seen as materialstic and flaunting their wealth. The nationwide attention for the ice cream incident and BMW MINI’s response to it has further damaged the brand’s reputation. The BMW stocks saw a price dip following the incident.
For some BMW car owners, the incident has also had negative consequences. According to various social media posts and photos, some BMW MINI owners saw their cars being scratched or vandalized over the past few days. At least one BMW MINI owner saw ice cream smeared over the front of their car.
3. The Snowball Effect of Social Media Storms
The incident involving BMW sparked a massive online controversy on Chinese social media, which quickly gained momentum. Initially triggered by one single video, it rapidly spiraled out of control as thousands of netizens joined in, expressing their views and creating their own videos and memes (also see this Twitter thread).
Some social media users also used old cartoons ridiculing preferential treatment for foreigners.
“Classic cartoon never goes out of date” (via Weibo/QCJ大王同学).
One meme suggested that “BMW” stands for: Bīngqílín (冰淇淋, Ice cream), Miǎnfèi (免费, Free), and Wàiguórén (外国人, Foreigners).
Besides general social media users, major brands also played a role in hyping up the incident. Other brands and companies used the firestorm to their advantage. Audi, for example, announced via social media that they would also be handing out ice cream only for Chinese people and other brands also started their own ice cream campaigns.
Chinese media outlets also played a major role in the incident as they kept reporting about the incident and promoted it on social media. By now, there are dozens of Weibo hashtags surrounding the incident and its aftermath, and the majority of them are initiated by Chinese media channels.
Chinese state media accounts also jabbed at BMW. CCTV aired an item showing that there is plenty of ice cream for all staff members on board of the Shandong PLA Navy aircraft carrier. Xinhua News even turned it into a hashtag, accompanied by a laughing emoji (#山东舰今天的冰淇淋是草莓味的#).
Screenshots from CCTV.
“We won’t give it to other countries,” some commenters joked: “Only Chinese can eat it.”
Meanwhile, some big KOL and influencer acounts also helped to attract more attention to the case by discussing it. Chinese political commentator Hu Xijin (@胡锡进), for example, also analyzed the incident. Although Hu called on netizens to be reasonable and have some understanding for the ordinary people who suddenly find themselves at the center of a social media storm, the mere fact that Hu brought the incident up multiple times to his 25 million Weibo followers perhaps did not exactly help in quieting things down.
For now, it seems that the BMW incident might keep fermenting for some time to come. While everyone is still talking about the ice cream incident, a second marketing faux-pas has already come up again as the next promotional freebie given away to visitors at the Shanghai Auto Show BMW booth is a wooden dog-shaped key hanger, giving people the option to engrave their name on it.
Many people also had an issue with this promo campaign: “So first they won’t give us ice cream, now they’re handing out dog tags with our name on it?”
Despite the controversy, many people still lined up at the BMW booth to get their freebies. The online discussions on the issue only seemed to bring more people to the car show. Turns out that bad publicity, after all, is still publicity.
Read more BMW-related articles here.
By Manya Koetse, with contributions by Miranda Barnes
Follow @whatsonweibo
Get the story behind the hashtag. Subscribe to What’s on Weibo here to receive our newsletter and get access to our latest articles:
References
Bickers, Robert A., and Jeffrey N. Wasserstrom. 1995. “Shanghai’s ‘Dogs and Chinese Not Admitted’ Sign: Legend, History and Contemporary Symbol.” The China Quarterly 142: pp. 444–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/655423. Accessed 24 Apr. 2023.
Image
Part of featured image by Mae Mu on Unsplash
Spotted a mistake or want to add something? Please let us know in comments below or email us. First-time commenters, please be patient – we will have to manually approve your comment before it appears.
©2023 Whatsonweibo. All rights reserved. Do not reproduce our content without permission – you can contact us at info@whatsonweibo.com.
China Digital
Cyberspace Administration of China Lays Out Rules for Generative AI Content: “Should Reflect the Core Values of Socialism”
Stricter control of AI services is widely supported, but some think China inevitably will fall behind in the generative AI race.
Meanwhile in Panda News: After More Than Two Decades, Yaya Returns to Beijing
‘Carpet Pacific’: A Timeline of the Cathay Pacific Scandal Through Weibo Hashtags
“The Frog in the Well”: China’s Condemnation of the G7 Summit
China’s Celebrity Weight Craze: Qin Hao’s Viral Diet and Body Anxiety Behind the Weight-Loss Trend
Weibo Watch: Comedy, Controversy, Complexity
Why Russia Is Nicknamed the “Weak Goose” on Chinese Social Media
“Like a Zombie Apocalypse” – Chaotic Scenes in Shanghai as People Flee Building after Abnormal Test Result
Nightmarish Night in Itaewon: Fatal Halloween Stampede in Seoul
Chinese Students Are Making Their Voices Heard, from Nanjing to Xi’an
The 11.24 Urumqi Fire: Mourning and Anger at Lives Lost in Apartment Building Inferno
The ‘Blank White Paper Protest’ in Beijing and Online Discussions on “Outside Forces”
Much Ado About Big Breasts: Two Controversies Surrounding Busty Women on Chinese Social Media
Did This TikToker Find Unseen Nanjing Massacre Photos? Regardless, Chinese Netizens Want the World to Know about 1937
Tribute to Urumqi at Shanghai’s Wulumqi Road
Barbie Hsu, Wang Xiaofei, and the Mattress Incident: Weibo’s Divorce Drama of the Year
-
China Celebs3 months agoHong Kong Police Find Head of Murdered Model Abby Choi in Soup Pot
-
China Arts & Entertainment1 month agoWhat Went Wrong in Suzhou Acrobatic Show? Fatal High-Altitude Fall Triggers Discussions on Safety Measures
-
China Digital3 months agoMeet Ren Xiaorong, People’s Daily AI Virtual News Anchor
-
China Insight2 months agoModern-Day Yugong or Greedy Wolf? Critical Discussions after Ningxia Land Owner Goes Viral Begging for Water